What telephone pole FBI spy cameras say about the “living document”

In recent news, new phenomena involving telephone pole FBI spy cameras are receiving some ludicrous arguments from the feds.

They argue that information about FBI cameras cannot be disclosed, because then people would know about them.

The Patriot Act switcharoo already revealed the intent behind 9/11, leading to the unconstitutional ruling of NSA spying. And now this further excess of security is supposed to be acceptable?

Surveillance didn’t stop a self-admitted ISIS gunman from shooting down 50 people in a nightclub.

And even if it did, nobody in their hearts and guts really wants the government spying on them all the time. That’s why nobody liked 1984. That’s why it was such a chilling book.

As written in ArsTechnica magazine:

Winn, meanwhile, wrote to Judge Jones that the location information about the disguised surveillance cams should be withheld because the public might think they are an “invasion of privacy.

User sondjata then left the clever comment:

I’m trying to figure out what part of:

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

is unclear.

The passage he quotes is the Fourth Amendment, directly from the Constitution. It seems to speak very clearly for itself, and yet the lying feds, such as Obama, suggest that this ancient document is in fact a “living document.”

The “living document” argument would suggest that, since the Constitution was written in a different time, that we can re-interpret it.

“We are living in different times now,” the government would say. As if the extent of violence or terrorism warrants a re-interpretation of the Constitution.

What this argument covers up is the fact that the Constitution was written the way it was FOR THIS EXACT REASON.

The authors KNEW and FORESAW government overreach, and so they built the Constitution to ensure that it would stand the test of time.

Now the fact that it’s an old document is being used against it? That’s the biggest irony I’ve ever seen.

The Constitution is old, and rightfully so. It was very carefully written when it was constructed by wise men who knew what could happen in the future, and tried to warn against it.

The Constitution does not need to be updated. It is NOT a living document, in that it grows with the times.

The intent of the author changes the nature of the work, however we might choose to interpret it. And in this case, intent is not only important, it is the MOST IMPORTANT THING about the Constitution because that is how the judges and courts are supposed to (and used to) make their rules based on it–by basing it on the intent of the document, and what presents “justice.”

History repeats itself, and the founding fathers purposefully set down a lasting foundation with proper checks and balances to ensure democracy would continue….

But when the government itself violates its own laws, then there is only one check left.

And it is not in writing.

The Fall of Rome

The Fall of the American Empire


“Tolerance” is becoming the opposite of what it used to mean.

In the US right now cities and states are ruling that “Shariah law” remain unaffected by US law. What this means is that muslims can come to our country and have their own laws and mini-societies within America, which includes amputating limbs of thieves and stoning adulterers.

while apparently there are stipulations to these punishments, i know full and well life in the middle east is miserable and dangerous, and people routinely get acid thrown on their face. why we would ever want anything like that here is ludicrous.

right now what’s happening in the world is this: islams, which are totally opposed to the freedoms once touted by American ideals, and want to kill all non-believers in their Jihad to win the favor of Allah and go to their heaven, are steadily mounting an empire in the east.

Muslim terrorists used to be guerilla groups and in a constant state of civil war. i was taught for a long time that they were never a threat because they did not have the organization or means to band together.

enter ISIS. if youre not familiar with world events, that is exactly what ISIS is–an organized Islamic empire. and we are almost at war with them.

i always figured world war III between the allies and the muslims would occur–i just did not know it would happen in my lifetime. it’s so patently obvious to anyone who knows about islam that it is not a happy religion. it is a militaristic one.

the Crusades in European history were born of the Catholic church and were not strictly adherent to the Bible. Biblical Christianity is not nearly as warlike as Islam, which demands its followers die in fire killing “infidels” for a guarantee to heaven (as opposed to just praying to Jesus).

i hope you see why having pockets of muslim sub-governments in our country is beyond stupid.

my father warned me once that muslims were coming to this country in droves and that there was a hidden agenda behind it. i am staring at the face of world events and am forced to conclude he is right.

you can’t please everyone

in an effort to be “tolerant” America has decided to let these religious communities have their own laws, which greatly differ from American ideals. but in so doing, “tolerance” actually becomes the opposite of its original meaning.

political correctness in America is out of control. you cannot limit the majority and declare speech “hate crimes” and let dangerous religious groups operate above the law. that is not tolerance. that is the opposite.

while before muslims would have had to “tolerate” not being able to kill cheating wives, now Americans are being forced to “tolerate” bloodshed on their own doorstep?

while before gay people would have had to tolerate people hating them for being gay, where are the equivalent ramifications for the opposite?

you can make fun of straight white men all day and that isn’t a hate crime. see? there is no tolerance here. there is only intolerance of people who aren’t LGBT, or who don’t like them, or who might actually have something critical to say about them.

America is not equal, it is not fair. in the interest of letting muslim terrorists perform their own vile laws on our very soil, we compromise the safety of the REST of its population.

here’s what people seem to miss:


if you can give it, you should be able to take it. just like i can’t smack a gay dude, women shouldn’t be able to smack men either.

but who wins?

thats the real problem, isnt it. in our rush to make America a great place to live for EVERYONE (literally) we have made it quite intolerable to live in.

because now instead of people tolerating people with differing opinions, or harsh criticism, or even trash-talking (which SHOULD have been their first amendment right) it is now considered intolerant to have those views.

guess what?

tolerance is bullshit. it’s just a word.

it’s a concept that has changed over time, it’s a part of language control, which is explained perfectly in George Orwell’ls 1984.

in order to have REAL “tolerance” and make America the best place to live, we have to be tolerant of intolerance.

people must be able to speak their mind, to criticize.

we must also base our laws on fact and human rights, not whatever feels right to the popular minority this year.

you see, in order to remain steadfast, you must dissatisfy people. you cannot please everyone. in trying to do so, you end up compromising the original value you had to give.

the only way to have value is to be real, to be truthful, to speak from experience and to even be a little selfish.

if you are pandering to others, your value is diluted because it’s no longer your truth. you are speaking in others’ words and eventually you will be outright lying to not “offend” people, when of course that means the message is no longer the original message.

“negativity” is not a bad thing. it is NECESSARY. it is a crucial part of life.

anger is natural and normal and it occurs when we need to RESOLVE something.

the irony is that by trying to stamp out “hatred” in America we are actively promoting the hatred of the alleged “victimed” party.

just see the kind of vitriol certain feminists display toward men who disparage feminism. they go so far as to want to send men to jail for false rape allegations, and kill them.

extreme feminists even want to kill ALL men:

it’s just pots calling the kettles black.

feminists hate mysoginists. the definition of mysoginist is “a hater of women.”

great, so let’s just pick a side and perpetuate the hate, and favor the side that is in our best political interest.

welcome to (modern) America.

in order to stem off corruption, you must remain dedicated to the core of what you are. your principles. you MUST be unbending and unbreakable and you must, yes, even be intolerant.

You must be intolerant to the whims of haters

the haters today may be the hated tomorrow. you cannot please everyone, people will always try to destroy one another.

to become America again, we must cater to laws that are in AMERICA’S best interest. not anyone else’s.

feminist laws? they’re only in hate-filled women’s best interests.
LGBT hate-crime laws? they’re definitely not in their critics’ best interests.
Shariah laws? they’re not really in ANYONE’S best interests, except muslim fanatics who believe in their hate-filled religion.

America is a hotbed of hatred, and you see it everywhere. people cannot look one another in the eye, they are wary, they are deceptive, they do not trust. sounds almost like the Middle East when you put it that way.

no, it’s not that bad yet, but my point is that by cracking down so hard in the name of “tolerance” we become the very thing we hated–we become the hatred. we become the haters instead of defending the REAL victims, the ones who lose their civil liberties.

all humans should be free.

that includes both the right to wear a dress when you have a penis AND the right to tell a gay person that you think it’s disgusting. that’s free speech. that’s true tolerance.

nowhere in this post have i stated that i think homosexuality is disgusting or wrong, none of this is hate-speech. but there’s the irony:

there are surely gay people who would read this and be up in arms because i am “siding with their haters.”

and you know what would happen next?

they would HATE me and want to jail me or ban me or shit on me and tear me down. ironic, no?

we see it all the time, but you just have to put two and two together. hate-crime laws are not tolerant, they are exactly the opposite. they only favor the chosen side, which happens to be the LGBTs. and perhaps, soon, the muslims.

America may burn and collapse, literally, just as Rome once did, and it’s easy to see the parallels. i always wondered to myself, though, in this analogy i often think of–who are the visigoths and other barbarians that will raid the Roman Empire while it is weak?

now i know. it’s so obvious i don’t even have to say it again.

prepare for the fall of Rome, kids. war is on our doorstep unless we take action against the truly insane regime we are letting have control.